March 7, 2012

Rush, on the radio just now. He explains: Sponsors are both local and national. The 600+ stations sell their own ads, and Rush doesn't even know who those local sponsors are. These sponsors don't cancel their ads on the station, they just put in an order that their ads not run during the Rush time slot. Things like this happen every day, and not just to Rush. "It's part of the business," but because there's attention to Rush's current problem, there are reports of these local advertisers putting in these orders, and the local stations don't even lose any revenue.

The left is just putting out propaganda, trying to create the impression that Rush's show is over. They are portraying local advertisers as if they were Rush's national advertisers. The 28 advertisers, at the 600+ stations, amount to virtually nothing in what is a pool of something like 18,000 advertisers at the local level.

He doesn't talk about how many of his national sponsors have canceled, but there must be some, because at one point, he talked said "2 of the sponsors who have cancelled have asked to return... one of them is practically begging," so there must be some.

A radio station's advertising can be thought of very much like a grocery store. There's only so much shelf space, ie, there's only so many 15, 30, and 60 second spots in an hour.

It's even worse for the local stations, because they are receiving a syndicated signal that's supposed to run a rigidly timed "clock" with very set break times and lengths. This allows local traffic managers to plan on how much shelf space they're going to have. It rarely changes.

Far from losing sponsers, even locally, there is usually a backlog of advertisers the station's sales manager can go to if one of those already using time on Rush's show fall away for whatever reason. The space is coveted and there are local companies waiting in the wing to leap into the empty space.

This was true in every market I worked, regardless of whether the IEB was being carried on an AM or FM signal.

It's far more likely to lose a national sponser than have problems filling up local slots. Even then, the national is often a co-opt buy with a local. If the national goes away, the local can use up whatever time the national was paying for in the same slot.

One of the funniest riffs I've ever heard was when a lib caller mentioned that Rush made a million dollars a year so ....

Rush went nuts. He spent ten minutes elaborating on how insulted he was that the guy thought he only made a million a year, and proceeded to belittle him for his lack of knowledge of his subject [Rush} and for his spreading false information.

shiloh keep dreaming. sears is slowly dying like penney, there are cheaper policies available than geico's, carbonite is dead man walking and with his audience rush will have no problem replacing advertisers. next january 20th rush will be on the air and obama will be unemployed along with a number of elected democrats. and Fluke still won't get her birth control pils paid for by geoergetown university. she might as wlell start carrying a placard saying " need money for sex".

How Republicans can engage in so much slut-shaming when surely they have wives/mothers/sisters/daughters/etc. that are sexually active confuses me.

Here...let me help you out.

Women can have as much sex as they want. It isn't anyone's business.

Except.... when you want other people to pay for your sexual activity and subsidize your sexually promiscuous life style.

That takes you from the free to do with your body what you want category into the "paid for" sexual slut whore category.

Your sexual life is YOUR personal business and shouldn't be paid for by your employer's wallet or mine either through higher insurance premiums to subisdise your freebies so you can fuck with impunity.

Geico might have felt they had to drop Rush, because they did fire their voice over talent for leaving a raging message on a tea party organizer's voicemail.

If QuickenLoans pulled out, that makes me sad. They were the sponsors for the really cool MSU basketball game on the aircraft carrier, which Obama used as a big promotion for himself. I hate to think QuickenLoans did either action for partisan political reasons.

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

The issue is forcing people, your employer or a religious institution (against their moral and religious laws) to PAY for you to have sex.

Yes, there are at least two different issues. When Rush called the woman testifying a "slut" and many other people defended Rush for doing so (including many commenters here), it raised the issue of how Republicans try to shame and punish woman over their sexuality.

We are capable of discussing more than one issue at a time. Some Republicans want to stop talking about how they try to shame and punish women over their sexuality because they know that it makes them look like monsters to most Americans.

sears is slowly dying like penney, there are cheaper policies available than geico's, carbonite is dead man walking and with his audience rush will have no problem replacing advertisers.

I feel a bit bad about Sears. They allowed much of this country to get merchandise by mail order that they couldn't otherwise get. Unfortunately, they never really made the transition to the eEconomy. And, ditto with Pennys, though they did even worse until fairly recently. They must have a new ad agency, because theirs are some of the only ads on TV that stick out these days, and do so in a good way.

Several people recently asked why Geico could afford to advertise so much these days, esp. on TV. My response is that they can do this because they don't pay claims, or do so as much as other insurance companies do. This seems to be the consensus around the retail insurance industry at least. My experiences with the company was that a friend of mine got hit by one of their insureds. Clear liability, but they refused to pay. So, I sued their insured, and included a little discovery with the complaint. Got a full settlement immediately. Insureds don't like getting sued personally for fender benders - that is what their insurance is for. And, according to those friends in the retail casualty market, Geico is still one of those companies that you don't want to be hit by their insureds.

Of course, Flo with Progressive is worse than Geico's stupid little reptile.

Many people in America .... think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

Many people in America think there is something wrong with people having casual sex. And they are entitled to their opinion so long as it is expressed non-violently. And people who think there is nothing wrong with it are entitled to do as they please so long as it does not involve forcing others to give up their right to disapprove and not to pay for other people's choices. No one says that you can't disapprove of people who eat too much or smoke. Promiscuity is at least as much of a health risk and is regarded by many as sinful or tasteless.

Forcing a Church to pay for something that violates its religious tenets is the only issue at hand, Andy R.

And how was Rush participating in that discussion when he called Fluke a slut?

It's encouraging that so many Republicans are trying to avoid having this conversation because they know how terrible it makes them look. But stamping your feet and saying it's about religious freedom does not make Rush's slut-shaming go away.

Other than pathologies and medical issues (endometriosis, hormonal supplements after ovarian removal, hysterectomies etc) which are rather rare and which ARE covered even by the Catholic organizations.......

Pray tell, what is the main reason for contraception usage? OTHER than for medical issues, why should anyone, besides yourself, pay for it?

Hint: the dictionary definition of contraception might give you a clue.

BH,I had the same experience with State Farm 40-odd years ago. My insurance company finally paid me off and then filed suit for reimbursement against State farm, who immediately paid up. My insurance company then billed me $50 for the cost of filing the suit.I was told this was S.O.P. with State Farm.

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex

And millions of Americans disagree with you.

It is beyond parody you can't grasp that.

I'm quite aware these people exist.

I'm thoroughly excited to have this conversation because almost all of them are Republicans and Christians and I think that not only are they wrong on the merits but it will expose to America what terrible people they are.

You realize that it is Democrats who want to talk about how there is nothing wrong with women being sexually active and Republicans who are trying to avoid this conversation or pretend there are other issues that we must discuss instead.

Please Jay, enlighten us on the horrors of women having recreational sex. While you're at it, I'm sure you will have something delightful to say about gay sex as well.

I'm thoroughly excited to have this conversation because almost all of them are Republicans and Christians and I think that not only are they wrong on the merits but it will expose to America what terrible people they are

Yes!!

Because in homo Andy's world - one of glory holes, bug chasing, and hundreds of anonymous partners - anyone any single person who may have qualms about casual sex is terrible!!

Ah, you missed the point. The federal government forced me to fund wars that conflict with my religious beliefs.

You appear to have missed the point of the whole controversy. Isn't it that the federal government is trying to make an organization do something internally, with it's own funds, that it's explicitly against?

Hmmm--I dont now, and have never listened to Mr Limbaugh--but it does seem to me he has what might be the single biggest listening audience in the country--this little contretemps appears to be already over as the MSM is now focusing back on the republican primary. Limbaugh wins. No advertiser is going to ignore an audience the size of Mr Limbaugh.

And, presuming the exit polls were reasonably accurate (I know, a big assumption), voters are focusing on 5 dollar a gallon gasoline and an economy that is in the tank.

Bugchasing is a slang term for the alleged practice of pursuing sexual intercourse with HIV-infected individuals in order to contract HIV. Individuals engaged in this activity are referred to as bugchasers. It is a form of self harm.[original research?][citation needed]

Bugchasers seek sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and becoming HIV positive; giftgivers are HIV positive individuals who comply with the bugchaser's efforts to become infected with HIV.

If some woman whose name rhymes with fuck had appeared before a Congressional Committee and spoke in favor of abstinence, the bet here is that liberal comedians would not have let that pass unnoticed. All things considered, Ms. Fluke got off pretty easy.

Andy R. said...Women can have as much sex as they want. It isn't anyone's business.

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

3/7/12 12:07 PM

I know it's a stretch for you but when a woman does the equivalent of walking around with a sign saying "need money for sex" she pretty much defined herself. Rush's comment was in bad taste but it is factually true. She defined herself.

The democrats can go on and make this a campaign issue, in fact please do so. Just let them explain to the sane voters and insurance policyholders why it's so important to pay higher premiums for other people's sex life. See if they can sell that to the working class voters with Fluke as a poster girl: she can afford $50,000 for a prestigious law school but needs your help but needs you help to avoid getting pregnant by her boyfriend who doesn't want to pay for her pills. You got a real winning argument there. Go for it.

When liberals come in with their scripted talking points, they give conservatives more opportunities to use the marketplace of ideas to hone, share, and disseminate effective counter-arguments to the leftist echo chamber.

Coming soon: more whining from the liberals how conservatives are better at "message delivery", as part continuing avoidance of introspection into the problems of the liberal dogma.

Indeed, just the fact America's #1 bigot has to do damage control is somewhat entertaining.

Al Sharpton had to do damage control? When?

Many people in America disagree with you. They think there is something wrong with women having casual sex. The people who believe this are terrible and should be convinced to stop punishing and shaming women over their sexuality.

Outside of gays who hate "breeders" like you, who is doing this?

As a Catholic, I'd like to have my share of tax dollars that have contributed to the funding of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars returned to me immediately!

You realize that it is Democrats who want to talk about how there is nothing wrong with women being sexually active and Republicans who are trying to avoid this conversation or pretend there are other issues that we must discuss instead.

So Republicans are forced to focus on the ins and outs of assorted college girls' vaginas because Democrats find it fascinating?

In any case, my insurance covers contraception.

So, LOTS of people have to cover the contraception.

You're aware that insurance companies get money from premiums people have to pay, right?

Indeed! Mark Sanford was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

David Vitter was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

Larry "wide stance" Craig was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

John Ensign was not forced to resign by Cons/Rep party.

Sanford's career is dead.Craig's career is dead.

Can you name a Democrat whose career died over sexual matters? Even their sacred cow of "sexual harassment" ceased being an even noteworthy concern once a Democrat got stuck in that mess.

DBQ what the proggs don't seem to get is that if the Supreme Court overturns dem care (and it probably will) the secondary effects will be disastrous for mandates in general. Like the recent gun control rulings to use an analogy the the pendulum is swinging back to more deference to enumerated rights and powers. The smarter proggs understand this and fear it.

If the court rules the way I believe it will (based on recent gun control rulings) then Obama, Pelosi and Reid would have inadvertently become the architects of the roll back of the entitlement state. Under Obama and the progressive democrats they may well have passed the jump-the-shark moment without even realizing it. The court will rule soon enough, probably before the election.

When liberals come in with their scripted talking points, they give conservatives more opportunities to use the marketplace of ideas to hone, share, and disseminate effective counter-arguments to the leftist echo chamber.

Coming soon: more whining from the liberals how conservatives are better at "message delivery", as part continuing avoidance of introspection into the problems of the liberal dogma.

3/7/12 1:25 PM

Conservatives are actually worse messengers, they don't do propaganda well. However they do have a better message. If the product doesn't work, hype can only get you so far.

This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse. Any female, parent, or just anyone with a sense of common decency would willingly boycott any sponsor that would support Lush Limpbaugh's divisive and abusive sexism, bigotry, and vitriol.

It's all nice and fine that the Democrats will try to make Rush the central campaign issue, but all that blows up in their face when Israel bombs Iran. Once again another Ayatollah undoes a Democrat president!

There’s nothing wrong with big families, of course. But the smug fecundity of the Republican field this primary season has me worried. Their family photos, with members of their respective broods spilling out to the margins, seem to convey a subliminal message that goes far beyond a father’s pride in being able to field his own basketball team. What the Republican front-runners seem to be saying is this: We are like the biblical patriarchs. As conservative religious believers, we take seriously the biblical injunction to be fruitful and multiply.

A debate over the role of religion in political life has shaped recent clashes over contraception and abortion.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence

As Prof Reynolds notes, "That’s their approach. Marginalize, then brutalize.

When will President Obama speak out against this hatred and extremism? Probably never. But since it’s been established that this sort of thing happens via close coordination between the White House and Media Matters, etc., there’s no denying responsibility now. I call upon the President to denounce his supporters’ hateful violent rhetoric, to promise not to engage in or encourage it again, and to apologize to Limbaugh for stirring up this cesspit of hatred among his followers. A President is supposed to lead, not incite violence"

PS ♥ (actually another of some phony folksy's/bathtub swabbie's multiple personalities) says he/she/it doesn't use words like fuck because of his/her/its religious beliefs. Funny, ♥ was bragging the other day how he/she/it doesn't believe in religion for the same reason he/she/it doesn't believe in fairies.

Ann, you misrepresent what people have been saying, that I've seen anyway. You accuse people of lying but you don't actually show anyone's actual words to back up your claim. You could quote them, like this:

"...trying to create the impression that Rush's show is over."

Instead, you erect a false and dishonest strawman contention and then say people are lying.

I was just reading lefty people saying this morning that Rush has survived these things before and probably will again.

"I was somewhat dubious that this sponsor boycott of Rush Limbaugh for his days of misogynistic comments against Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke would be able to gain steam. "http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/07/rush-limbaugh-boycott-up-to-at-least-36-advertisers/

"Here's the thing, though: as Meteor Blades wrote, Limbaugh has been here before, repeatedly. And every time, sponsors wait for the storm to blow over and then eventually come back."Dailykos. today.

TPM: "All that being said, will Limbaugh — who has up to 20 million weekly listeners —take a big hit over this latest controversy? It’s not likely, the publisher of a talk radio trade magazine said. “Life will go on; Rush will continue,” "

Yeah, I can't find anyone saying what you claim they say, Ann. may say things like "keep up the pressure until they drop him" but are not optimistic the talk show addict will be taken off the air.

"And now, with their crusade against birth control, the Catholic bishops are helping to articulate and elevate that unspoken and archaic value in public. Fertility is a gift from God, they say. To mess with that gift goes against God’s plan."

How completely dishonest is this article.

There is no "crusade" against birth control by the church.

The Catholic church is not trying to tell anyone other than their own religious adherents what they should or should not do regarding birth control.

They are not forcing anyone to do anything....not even their own parishioners.

The Church has a moral stand that only affects the consciouses of their own people.

The Church is merely objecting to being FORCED to provide and pay for something that goes against it's religious teachings.

The Church is NOT preventing anyone, anywhere or at anytime access to birth control.

Especially worrisome is the inevitable corollary to that belief: Women should put their natural fertility first — before their brains, before their ability to earn a living, before their independence...

Lisa Miller is worried about the wrong thing. If they don't reform themselves from within Lisa Miller and regressives like her will eventually be demographed into political oblivion.

It interests me the writer sees holding women down as some goal of the GOP/Church, when it was the left who wrote - in the Washington Post- encouraging Palin to reconsider her VP candidacy because of the needs of her children.

Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

This whole brouhaha was manufactured to attack Obama. When the Feds passed a nearly identical rule under Bush there was not a peep of protest. Because the cardinals are heavily partisan and waging culture war on the rest of us.

Anyway, their employees can but contraceptives with wages from the church. How is that any different than an insurance policy that doesn't discriminate? It's a dumb issue.

Although, frankly, it does seem pretty clear that the Catholic church is above the law. They have run an international racketeering conspiracy to aid child sex abusers in avoiding the law and obstructing justice. The same pattern has shown up in multiple countries but, to my knowledge, they have been allowed to skirt the law.

These people have the nerve to harangue anyone over morals? And now many of them are denying these things even happened, or blaming the 60s. It's galling to hear them claim they are moral superiors to the rest of us who should be able to control the most intimate details of other peoples' lives.

It interests me the writer sees holding women down as some goal of the GOP/Church, when it was the left who wrote - in the Washington Post- encouraging Palin to reconsider her VP candidacy because of the needs of her children.

Yes it is. The cognitive disconnect is huge and the left and especially the feminist leftists are totally oblivious to how duplicitous they really are.

A big part is also projection. The left is full of hatred, bigotry and spews pure evil

like this: This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse. Any female, parent, or just anyone with a sense of common decency would willingly boycott any sponsor that would support Lush Limpbaugh's divisive and abusive sexism, bigotry, and vitriol.

Yet. They don't see this as evil or hatred and project all of those qualities onto others.

AlphaLiberal said...Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

Yeah. They kinda do if you subscribe to their programs, or go to their schools. If you don't agree with their doctrine, don't have anything to do with them. Nobody is forcing you to believe what they believe, but you want to force them to go against the dictates of their god.

Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

They aren't doing so. However, Obama IS trying to impose values the Church holds to be offensive upon them.

The 1st Amendment --- it is a 2 way street here.

This whole brouhaha was manufactured to attack Obama. When the Feds passed a nearly identical rule under Bush there was not a peep of protest. Because the cardinals are heavily partisan and waging culture war on the rest of us.

Bush insisted they cover contraceptives? Then "compromised" and said insurance companies have to offer it for free, as if that is even remotely different?

Can you link to this Bush policy insisting upon this?

Anyway, their employees can but contraceptives with wages from the church. How is that any different than an insurance policy that doesn't discriminate?

Because a wage isn't the Church's money. It is the agreement they made to pay you for your work. It is your money under your terms of employment.

A Church can't just withhold salaries. They can drop insurance easily.

Although, frankly, it does seem pretty clear that the Catholic church is above the law. They have run an international racketeering conspiracy to aid child sex abusers in avoiding the law and obstructing justice.

Can you cite why the Catholic Church is above the law but public education isn't?

Public schools have a FAR more pronounced issue with pedophilia and are STILL sending "problem" teachers to other schools.

The only difference is that my money isn't stolen from me to pay for the Catholic Church.

It's galling to hear them claim they are moral superiors to the rest of us who should be able to control the most intimate details of other peoples' lives.

"Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others."

Actually they do have a special right. It is so special that it is explained and guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

And of course you know very well that the Catholic Church has zero ability to impose their religious views on anyone. All they can do is attempt to persuade, while the United States Constitution protects and guarantees their right not to have their religions freedom infringed.

The definition of "impose" does not stretch to mean "failure to abandon doctrine wholesale."

'On the business side.'. There's something fabulous about that phrase in this context. It's like a subtle reminder to all of his detractors (as if they needed one) that, while he's pissing them off, he's making a ton of money. And, yes, despite all of this, he's still making a ton of money.

Pedophilia isn't a doctrinal tenet of the Catholic Church and no claim is made that employees or priests have a clerical version of diplomatic immunity.

Where a religious practice conflicts with criminal law, or anything else, the State has to prove a compelling interest. If you're sacrificing children to Baal that probably would not be a hard standard to meet.

There is no possible way that the State can claim it has that great a necessity to provide contraception, abortions or sterilizations. And even if it could show that necessity there are numerous ways to provide those things without destroying 1st Amendment protections. It is, in fact, almost trivially easy to respect the conscience of religion. No one is made to do without as things stand. There is no need being denied. It's just an arbitrary, capricious, law passed and the only problem is utter laziness because following the Constitution of the United States is a bother.

Nathan Alexander: "By the very fact of being offended, they have conceded that Rush's judgment is correct in the eyes of most Americans."

That seemed like a curious argument to me, so I decided to test his logic by calling Nathan Alexander a moron. He was offended. Therefore, by his own logic, Nathan Alexander confirms that he's a moron.

When liberals come in with their scripted talking points, they give conservatives more opportunities to use the marketplace of ideas to hone, share, and disseminate effective counter-arguments to the leftist echo chamber.

In the "marketplace of ideas," Nathan Alexander ekes out an existence as a panhandler. :(

Just how, pray tell, Alex, does that work? Please give us the gift of your radio advertising expertise

I ain't an expert, nor am I Alex, but I was part of the sales team for a college radio station. We had an advertiser really upset about one of the overnite DJs (call-in show with some edgy topics) so we told him that we wouldn't run any of his ads during that timeslot. The business owner said that wasn't enough; he wasn't gonna run any ads as long as that show was aired on the station. Being it was only one client it was an easy choice for us to choose to stand by our show...

(Ain't saying that Limbaugh's career is over or anything like that...simply sharing what I experienced.)

@I ♥ Willard,First, "slut" is a value judgment. "Moron" is not. If you can't see that it is impossible to be offended by a value judgment you don't share, well, then I guess the entire conversation is over your head.Second, you'll have to provide some evidence I was offended by you calling me a moron.I wasn't. I considered the source, and was amused.

Complete failure at basic logic, reason, and understanding context: that is probably why you are a liberal.

AlphaLiberal said... Churches are not above the law. They have no right or special privilege to impose their religion views on contraception or anything else on others.

Setting aside a pesky enumerated right in the constitution your argument works against you. The mandate to must provide is also a moral statement and view being imposed on those who do not share that view.

Please keep coming back. I realize its not been quite the same here since the great "purge," but this place is the lesser for your absence. I would propose marriage to entice you back, but for some strange reason my wife and your husband, they...well....OTHER THAN THAT, what can I do to entice you to stay? :)

PS ♥ (actually another of some phony folksy's/bathtub swabbie's multiple personalities) says he/she/it doesn't use words like fuck because of his/her/its religious beliefs. Funny, ♥ was bragging the other day how he/she/it doesn't believe in religion for the same reason he/she/it doesn't believe in fairies.

Does anyone have an edutcher-to-english dictionary?

In case anyone cares, I've never said I'm not religious. edutcher is just a bit dim. :(

Micia said... This callous fat dickless turd and his fucktard listeners are nothing but poison to political discourse. Any female, parent, or just anyone with a sense of common decency would willingly boycott any sponsor that would support Lush Limpbaugh's divisive and abusive sexism, bigotry, and vitriol.

3/7/12 1:45 PM

When Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a twat and cunt he confused her with you. And guess what, judging from exceptionally stupid and nasty comment he was right!

Another ho who wants feebies. As dadavocate said she wants others to pay their fair share so she can get her free share. Hey by the way, did ever occur to you that boycotts work both ways? It must kill you that his property tax for one year is probably more than you will earn legally in ten years.

And no decent person would ever watch Madow or Shultz and the rest of the commie crazies.

it raised the issue of how Republicans try to shame and punish woman over their sexuality.

For some time now, since I pegged you as a self-satisfied hypocrite, I've dumped you into the Bozo bin and don't read your comments. So I don't know what you've been spouting about the latest vapors about Rush from the left.

However, in this particular thread I have read through your comments. What is striking is that you appear to have an extraordinarily difficult time understanding, interpreting, and placing in context very simple concepts.

I suggest that you find someone who knows you personally to explain current events to you in the simplest terms possible. I don't think the commenters here have the patience.

I said: Please explain why (other than for medical pathologies) I or anyone else should pay for your contraception use.

You don't pay for the contraception available to me. My health care benefits are provided by my employer.

Your employer, buys insurance from a (so far) private company. When that company and your employer are FORCED to provide goods and services by the Government at less than optimal/market costs (aka free in Obama's latest mandate from upon high)....those costs get passed onto everyone else who is also buying insurance or paying for the insurance.

Paying for YOUR benefits through higher premiums. Or in other words subsidising your lifestyle, wants and desires through higher premiums on my part.

You really aren't very good at this economic/business thingy...are you?

Your employer, buys insurance from a (so far) private company. When that company and your employer are FORCED to provide goods and services by the Government

You really aren't paying attention or grasping the obvious. My employer has been providing health care benefits that include contraception without being FORCED by the government.

So you can whine all you like about paying for my health care benefits (or as you call them, "sex"), but the simple unavoidable fact is that my benefits were not changed by the mandate. I guess that means that in your world, you've been paying for my "sex" since 2006.

Thanks for that! :)

Paying for YOUR benefits through higher premiums. Or in other words subsidising your lifestyle, wants and desires through higher premiums on my part.

Ok, now your complaint is with the way the health insurance business works. You should really get on the phone and talk to the insurance industry about this.

While you're at it, tell the insurance companies to stop using categories like age and gender to set auto insurance rates. I don't like paying higher rates because I'm a younger driver. Why should I have to pay for the poor driving habits of other drivers my age? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

You really aren't very good at this economic/business thingy...are you?

So you can whine all you like about paying for my health care benefits (or as you call them, "sex"), but the simple unavoidable fact is that my benefits were not changed by the mandate. I guess that means that in your world, you've been paying for my "sex" since 2006.

Hysterical.

Are people really this dumb or are you just trolling?

You're really unable to grasp the fact that the mandate requires changes to employers?

You're pretty stupid and it is beyond bizarre why you keep commenting.

You're really unable to grasp the fact that the mandate requires changes to employers?

Employer, not employers. I've been quizzed about MY health care benefits provided by MY employer. I've been responding to incessant baseless whining about how the mandate requires the taxpayer to pay for my benefits (or what some of you continue to call "sex").

The mandate has not changed the coverage provided by my employer. Why are you so slow to grasp this? Is it because I've only repeated it 5 times?